Home Alone In Concert (Revisit 2023)

 

One of my favorite concert experiences, is to see a film I love, with the score delivered by an orchestra. Earlier this year I had the chance to see "Star Wars" in Concert with the Austin Symphony Orchestra. I suspect that the music director of the symphony is a fan of composer John Williams (of course who isn't?), because this week, for the second time this year, a score featuring the music of Williams was featured accompanied by the film, in this case it was the holiday film "Home Alone". 

I was confident that I had written a post on this film before. I thought I might have seen it in a Fathom Event screening, so it would have been on my list of films I have covered. When I looked however, I found no record of having covered the movie before, so it turns out this will be a first time as well. "Home Alone" was the most successful film of 1990, and it shared end of the year financial records with "Dances with Wolves".  The Kevin Costner film ended up with all of the end of the year honors, but this John Hughes written, Christopher Columbus directed film ended up as the box office champ. So Kevin McCallister turned out to be the top Kevin of the year, at least when it came to money. The two Academy Award nominations that "Home Alone" did receive however, both went to John Williams, one for the song he wrote which Leslie Bricusse did the lyrics for, and a second for the score of the film.

Before I get to the music, a little at least about the film. Certainly, almost anyone reading this will have seen "Home Alone", it has become a Christmas Classic. It was the first 20th Century Fox film to be released to the sell through market on VHS, and became, along with E.T. the Extraterrestrial, the biggest selling video of the era. This movie has been in the heads of families for more than thirty years, and it has been parodied relentlessly as well as making a star out of Macaulay Culkin. The plot has been described by some as "Die Hard" with a kid.  Young Kevin, having been accidentally left behind by his family, defends the homestead from burglars played by Joe Pesci and Daniel Stern. Amazingly, Pesci was also in the very different role of  Tommy DeVito, a murderous Mafioso, in theaters just a few weeks before this comic role. The combination of the two may have been the reason that his performance in "Goodfellas" was the sole Academy Award win for that film. 

Director Chris Columbus was responsible for adding the character of the neighbor, suspected of being a shovel killer, Mr. Marley. The character played so effectively by Roberts Blossom, is one of the things that raises the film from a slapstick farce to a more touching human comedy. The movie features several sequences where eight year old Kevin, speaks quite wisely, but still like a kid, and most of that works pretty well. His encounters with the checkout girl at the grocery store, and the Santa finishing his shift, let us believe a lot more in the final conversation with Marley in the church. Of course there is plenty of eye poking, three stooges type humor when the home invasion starts, so you can laugh and cringe simultaneously.  

The audience for the concert was wired for this experience from the very start. There was a noticeable amount of applause and cheering for the 20th Century Fox logo at the start of the film. Maybe some of the audience was like me, nostalgic for a classic film studio that no longer exists. The theme music plays throughout the picture, but it is in the last half of the film that the music soars, in part because of the chorale music and singing that occurs around the time Marley and Kevin have their conversation. In the concert hall, this was accompanied by a 70 person chorale of high school singers who came in and sat in front of the orchestra, after an intermission, which is invented by the event and not part of the original film. 

I have said it before to others when talking about this movie, it is so much better than it has a right to be and than you remember. I took my kids to see the film when they were four and two, neither remembers the experience but I do. We went with my best friend's family, they had two children the same age as ours, and we all enjoyed the movie as best as young kids could. It became a favorite of James, my friend's son. Three years later I lost my friend to cancer and his family dropped out of our lives, but I always think of them when I see this movie. Merry Christmas, ya filthy animals.

Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (Revisit)

The first two Harry Potter films had a lot riding on them, and Director Christopher Columbus is often criticized for lacking an edge to the films. In truth though, it wasn't until the later books that the stories got deeper and the history started building on itself. This was a new venture and the book series was not complete when work on the first movies began. The kids in the story really are kids, not teenagers and so it seems appropriate to make these movies as children's films and establish the universe that the characters will occupy for subsequent stories. This film came after "Adventures in Babysitting", "Home Alone", and "Mrs. Doubtfire", all films that have a comic kids sensibility. He was the right choice to baptize Harry into films and the two movies he made are excellent. They may not be everyone's favorite Potter films, but they are essential and vastly entertaining. 

"Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets "is the second film in the franchise and takes us to the second year at Hogwarts. It continues to build the history of the school, show us an elaborate environment for the story to take place, and gives us another mostly stand alone hero story before the more complex interweaving of the following films. The beloved character of Dobby the house elf is introduced and even though he is primarily a CGI character, he comes to life and endears us in a way that Jar Jar Binks never could. Although Dobby can be annoying, his personality is understood as part of a character forced into a the circumstances that created him. He also is redemptive by the end of the series and was not overused just for laughs. 

A character who appears only in this one film, but dominates the movie (although not the plot) is Gilderoy Lockhart, as depicted by Kenneth Branagh. When I first read the book, and thought of an actor to play this character, Hugh Grant came immediately to mind. The vain, slightly silly and lightweight nature of the character seemed a perfect fit. The trivia on IMDB says that Grant was actually cast but had to withdraw due to a scheduling conflict. Nothing against Hugh Grant, I really enjoy him as an actor, but Kenneth Branagh was perfection in this film. He had the same qualities I mentioned above, but he also plays an unctuousness that I'm not sure Grant could have brought. Lockhart is the real comic relief in the film and he is inserted just enough to justify his presence, even though the character is superfluous to the main story. This is the only Patter film with a post credits sequence and it naturally is a joke about Gilderoy Lockhart. 

While the film is a little more dark in plot line, the photography matches that pretty well while still managing to keep the mostly upbeat tone of the first two books. There are still kids style shenanigans.  and the young actors sometimes over do the mugging for the camera, Radcliffe is stronger in the role as he is moving into the other films, Grint and Watson are a little behind but still better than in the first movie. The maturation process of growing up seems to have worked on the actors because they get better with each subsequent film. 

This was the last film for Richard Harris who originated the role of Dumbledore. In the same year he played a part in a terrific version of "The Count of Monte Cristo", where his character is quite aged and infirm. Harris was dying of Hodgkin's lymphoma when he made both movies and his delicate state was unfortunately obvious on film. I would never say it was a blessing that he passed on, but I will say that recasting was needed because Dumbledore, while aging, is still a vital and dynamic figure in the series, and Michael Gambon was more up to the task in the remaining films. 

One of the most inventive elements of the story was Tom Riddle's Diary. The effect of Harry, entering the pages of the diary, foreshadows the magic of the pensive which will become essential later in the stories. The other element of this is that the diary turns out to be one of the Horcrux that Harry is searching for in the last two films and it really helps tie the universe together without making every new component feel like it is being retconned into the plot. "The Chamber of Secrets" is surprisingly, the longest of the Harry Potter films, but it does not feel that way because of the light touch Chris Columbus brought to assembling it and the brilliant insertion of Kenneth Branagh into the role of Gilderoy Lockhart.  

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone 20th Anniversary

 It's hard for me to believe that Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone is 20 years old. In that time frame we got a total of 10 films in the Harry Potter universe most of which were completed within a 12 year period . There had never been anything attempted  like this before, the MCEU came along later with its three and four phases. Harry Potter however is something that is special for most kids because it's a Gateway film into the fantasy universe. Kids who saw these films growing up have their own version of The Wizard of Oz, the Ten Commandments, and Star Wars. 

The first film in the series had to try and get everything right. Director Christopher Columbus was sometimes accused of going soft on the storytelling but that ignores the fact that this was indeed a children's story to begin with. It's only after the third or fourth film that it really becomes much more a coming-of-age film series and much more dramatic. The Sorcerer's Stone had to work for the audience at this time, in order to set everything else up. The visualization of the story is it strongest component. Privet Drive, Diagon Alley, and Hogwarts are perfectly presented to us in almost exactly the way most of us thought in our Mind's Eye. The casting of the characters was also very successful, especially the young leads, who would have to carry this film series for a decade. The one choice that seemed obvious at the time was Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore, but it seems to me in retrospect to be the weakest link in the film. Not because Harris was bad or didn't look like the Dumbledore  we wanted but his advanced age ,which was later clear because of his death, made him seem more frail than any of us probably imagined. But Harris's voice and facial expressions do setup the criteria for the character. 

Today I got a chance to see the original film on the big screen and once again it impresses. John William's Charming score featuring The Beautiful Hedwig's theme, set the grounds for the music in the rest of the film series. The CGI only looks clunky in a couple of places and everything of course got much better as the series went along. Most of the things that were essential in the book, got put into the movie ,which may have made the film a little long but probably delighted it's youthful audience, and me too.

Had I known that the movie was playing with  what is billed as Magic Movie Mode, I would have made plans to stay and watch it the second time through. The Magic Movie Mode basically includes inserts of director's commentary,and  bubble screens with details about props and makeup and scenery, as well is having a little bit of a game for kids to follow along ,where they count appearances the golden snitch. But since the film is almost 3 hours to begin with a second 3 hours seemed a little daunting. The problem with watching this film is that I immediately I want to watch the other films in the series right away.

My own kids experienced this film at just the right age they were 13 and 15 when the movie came out and, as such, could easily relate the main characters in the story. The night we first saw this was the last time we also saw our friends Kathy, James, and Rebecca. Something had upset Kathy and much like she had done 6 years earlier she ghosted us and we never figured out what her problem was. I feel a little bad because the two kids were friends with our kids and they were the children of my best friend who had passed away. I have never let the negative experience interfere with my memory of the first time we saw this film. It Still Remains a glorious children's film that sets up an astonishingly mature set of films that follow it. If you get a chance, make some time and remember what it felt like the 20 years younger and anticipating the Wonder.

Young Sherlock Holmes

Inspired by a post from one of my on-line friends, I revisited this film today and decided to include it in the summer look back project, "films lost in time". This really should not be a lost film but given it's lack of box office success and the the fact that it is not yet available on blu ray, I suspect that most of today's audience is only vaguely familiar with it. 

This should have been a smashing success given it's pedigree and release. Steve Spielberg is one of the Executive Producers and his team made up the rest of those responsible for bringing this to the screen. The Director was Barry Levinson, who had directed "The Natural" the year before and would go on to direct and win the Academy Award for "Rain Man" three years later. The script comes from Chris Columbus who had written "Gremlins" and "The Goonies" before this and who would go on to make a few films that will feel very familiar after seeing this (more on that later). This was released in the U.S. during the holiday season of 1985 and it basically tanked. The box office was mild to low and barely matched the production cost. So what went wrong, again, I'll delay that for a few paragraphs. Let's talk about the movie first.

The idea of retconning Sherlock Holmes into a youthful action character is not a bad one. In the original books, we learn of Holmes and Watson meeting as they take up rooms together on Baker Street, but this scenario makes them schoolmates at a posh academic institution in Victorian England. Holmes has already mastered the art of deduction as he calls it [frankly it is mostly inductive sign reasoning and a little hard to believe at times]. 

As the two young future archetypes are meeting, a series of deaths are taking place in London. We witness a mysterious figure using a small blow gun to shoot darts at several older gentlemen. Those men begin to have fantastic hallucinations which result in deaths that appear to be suicides. From the start of the film, it is clear that the film makers want to dazzle us with special effects as part of the excitement of the movie. Articulated puppets and stop motion animation are used early on to bring horrific images to life. 

 

The most likely reason this film would be historically significant is that it contains one of the earliest CGI effects on screen to achieve the images the film makers wanted. A priest is attacked by a figure that climbs out of a stained glass window. This sequence explains why the films lone Academy Award Nomination was for Visual Effects. The Knight becomes a three dimensional image which strikes terror into the elderly man who runs into the street and is mowed down by a carriage. 

Although primitive by today's standards, it was jaw dropping at the time and I remember Siskel and Ebert talking about it and one of them picking it as their choice in their annual Oscar handicapping show. 

The story centers around the two well known characters and a third one invented for this enterprise.  A confirmed bachelor like Holmes is during most of his film history, must have a woman in his past to explain his predilection. So Columbus creates Elizabeth, the niece of a character in the story and Holmes love interest. This will require that Watson and Holmes have to rescue Elizabeth on more than one occasion. That's right, she is a damsel in distress for most of the last third of the film. The development of Holmes as a character is pretty good in the story. He is interested in unique subjects, he has an eccentric mentor, and he is admired by many and despised by a few elitists. His friendship with the new boy does not help him win the affection of either his belligerent teacher or the light blond future MP that he makes an enemy. Does any of this sound familiar to you? It should because it is likely that Harry Potter and friends grew out of this kind of stew. The fact that Chris Columbus who directed the first two Harry Potter films also wrote the screenplay here, seems like a lot more than just coincidence.

Let's add another interesting parallel, young future Dr. Watson looks like a chubbier version of you know who.

With so many things going for it, what caused this film to fail with a broad audience? Speaking simply as a movie fan I think I can point to two things. The most criticized parts of the previous year's "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" are resurrected to provide the villain and motives here. There is virtually no surprise when the antagonist is revealed, so the suspense is missing for the most part. When to secret society perpetrating the crimes is revealed, it is a moment right out of the very dark Indiana Jones movie. 

 Acolytes surround a hapless victim overseen by an evil priest of an alien religious cult and a towering figure of the spirit that they worship. In a true "what the hell" moment, we discover that there are other murders connected to this story and suddenly the plot shifts to a completely different issue. Foreshadowing his future emotionally stunted growth, Holmes cries out and alerts everyone there to his presence. And none of this seems to be well connected to the logical procedural method Holmes supposedly follows. Instead, a series of chance insights leads to the discovery of an underground temple. 

Holmes and Watson have to become Butch and Sundance and it is just not as credible at this point as it needs to be. The action points start driving the plot instead of the character points. 

Holmes and Watson have to become the Wright Bothers at one point, and although the scene is fun, it feels tacked on rather than organic to the Holmes tradition of investigation. 

One other thing that I think sabotages the film, and this is a spoiler so if you haven'y yet viewed the movie and don't want to be ticked off before doing so, stop now and come back later.

Holmes fails. 

All the build up and eventual destruction and the outcome is depressing and undermines the spirit of the film. Someone must have thought it was creatively challenging to finish on this note. Here is the way it came across to me. "Ho,ho, ho, your [character not to be identified by me] dies, Merry Christmas. Hope you and the family enjoyed this." If you did the same thing to any of the other successful Spielbergian type movies at the time, you would get the same dismal box office result. "Goonies" would not be a beloved 80s touchstone, "Cocoon" would have stalled Ron Howard's career, and "Raiders" would be an experiment that failed. 

Despite the dramatic faults of the movie, it had a lot of other things to recommend it. The setting and sets were very nicely utilized and they look great. The costumes and the actors fit into the world that was created very effectively. 

Bruce Broughton was nominated for the Academy Award for his music in "Silverado" from earlier in the year, and his work here is alo excellent. The theme tune will be a pretty simple earworm that will remind you every time you hear it of this film. 

For those of you who think the Marvel Films invented the post title credit scene, stick around for the end of this movie. Clearly there were hopes of a sequel, but when a movie under-performs like this, you are not going to get Part II. Although Nicolas Rowe does reprise the character in a brief cameo in the far superior "Mr. Holmes" which I guess we can call "Old Sherlock Holmes". 

Gremlins/Gremlins 2: The New Batch

If any of you read my blog project last year, you will know that although I think "Amadeus" was the best film of 1984 (or any other year in the 1980s), it was not my favorite film of the year. That honor fell to a subversive little film that grabbed us by the heart and then kicked us in the balls. You can read the exhaustive discussion of "Gremlins" on that site, and if you missed it I hope you will go over and enjoy the nostalgia.

Last night as part of a week long tribute to director Joe Dante, a screening of "Gremlins" was held along with the sequel "Gremlins 2: The New Batch". Dante is one of those guys who came from the Roger Corman school of film making. Make em cheap, fast and be inventive. There are other double features playing this week that if I had the time to see, I would make the return trip to Hollywood. "The 'Burbs/Matinee" and "Innerspace/Explorers" are this weekend and his new film "Burying the Ex" a zombie horror comedy is screening tonight. I would not have forgiven myself though if I had skipped the opportunity to see "Gremlins" on the big screen.

At the Turner Classic Film Festival back in March, I sat right in front of John Milius for a showing of "The Wind and the Lion". Last night, the director of the film I love sat one row in front of me on the other side of the aisle. He did not stay for the whole film but he did do a brief introduction of the two movies, describing the "New Batch" as being more personal since he and his collaborators created it while he worked from Chris Columbus's script for the original.

This was actually the second time I sat behind Mr. Dante at a movie screening. In 1988 my wife and I saw the Bruce Willis/James Garner salute to Tom Mix, "Sunset" at the Cinerama Dome. Mr. Dante came in right as the movie started and sat directly in front of us. I don't know that anyone else might have recognized him but at the time, I was a pretty big geek about "Gremlins" and to me it was a cool celebrity sighting.

"The New Batch" is an even more maniacal comedy of destruction and mayhem than the original. The technology was up dated and they had a bigger budget, and as Mr. Dante said last night, Warner Brothers was so happy to be getting a sequel that they pretty much let him do whatever he wanted.  What he did was a parody of his own film. The jokes make reference to moments in the original that often stand out as issues for some fans. As the security guys are dismissing Billy's warning about the creatures, they ask those questions that critical fans might have asked about the original, like what if a piece of food caught between their teeth in a meal before mid-night comes loose after mid-night? Does that trigger the metamorphosis?  Kate starts a story at an odd moment during the film about her tragic memories of a Lincoln's Birthday trauma from her childhood. The movie is filled with those sort of self referential jokes.

John Glover is marvelous as a cross between Donald Trump and Ted Turner, getting the bluster right and in the background being mocked by P.A. announcements and gift shop bric-à-brac . Leonard Maltin basically repeats his criticism of the original as being too violent for it's own good, before being taken down in a moment of gentler violence. Sadly this day we lost Christopher Lee, who appeared in this film as a mad scientist with no conscience but a high level of lawsuit awareness.

The real stars of the movie however are the gremlins themselves, many of which have undergone a genetic transformation as a result of the lab experiments of Lee's mad Dr. Catheter. There are vegetable gremlins and arachnid gremlins and flying gremlins. There is also one that might be deemed by Chris Brown a "Science Experiment" much like he described Mr./Ms. Jenner recently. Tony Randall does the voice of an intellectualized gremlin and makes mayhem seem as if it is a cultural behavior that we should value from this new class of creatures.

While it may be Mr. Dante's choice, it does lack the heart of the first film, and the violent surprises that took our breath away and helped create the PG-13 rating. Gizmo is side lined for much of the sequel and the expressive face that made him the focus of marketing and audience adoration in the first film, gets used much more sparingly in the second.  It is still a wonderful film, my preference is as always for the original.